Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo- Aguilar, aka Alex Higinio Valdiviezo- Aguilar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit***
Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO HIGINIO VALDIVIEZO-
AGUILAR, aka Alex Higinio Valdiviezo-
Aguilar,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71787
Agency No. A026-975-077
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 5, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: CUDAHY, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.***
FILED
OCT 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar petitions for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ’s) conclusion that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien
convicted of committing an offense “relating to a controlled substance.” The IJ
also determined that Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable under INA §
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien present in the United States and not in possession of
any valid entry document. Valvidezo-Aguilar did not contest that basis for finding
removability before the BIA; nor does he challenge it in his petition for review
before us. Because Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable in any event under INA §
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), we would be unable to provide any effective relief even if we
were to decide the merits of his § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) claim in his favor.
Accordingly, Valdiviezo-Aguilar’s petition for review is moot, and must be
dismissed. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Fed. Express Corp.,
558 F.3d 842, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100
F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --